Sandip and Bimala are caught up in the Swadeshi movement and anxious to end trade with England, but they continue to willingly intertwine English culture into their daily lives. I am somewhat confused by this contradiction. After first hearing Sandip speak about the movement, Bimala tells her husband that she wants to burn all of her English clothes in a bonfire, which is a pretty extreme statement of desired disassociation with England. They both preach that they want nothing to do with England. However, they each show one small sign in the novel that they are not completely willing to rid of English culture. I feel that the author included these individual incidents to prove how unrealistic the ideas of the movement were, or at least the extremity to which the two characters wanted to follow through with it. Sandip particularly seems to have a 'go big or go home' attitude, yet he can not even follow through with the framework of his own Nationalistic movement. The two incidents that I refer to are Sandip reading an English book and Bimala using an English pattern for her embroidery. I feel that the two characters are not even conscious of the contradictions they are making. Bimala was in the middle of making her embroidery when Sandip came to visit, and as soon as she heard of his arrival she "flung aside the embroidery" (70). She obviously likes some English style, but literally throws aside these feelings for her dedication to the Swadeshi movement. There is a constant back-and-forth movement with Bimala between the English culture which has seeped into her lifestyle and the Nationalistic ideals. Sandip, who seems to outwardly detest all things that aren't Indian, reads an English book on sex to better understand human nature. Not only does he read this book, but he uses it as inspiration for the movement. This contradiction is pretty obvious and self-explanatory. Maybe I am misunderstanding the Swadeshi movement and exaggerating the distaste that the people involved in the movement had for the English. However, I do feel like these contradictions were strategically placed in the book to highlight the problems with the movement and its unrealistically extreme framework.
In the movie-version of the novel, the director really exagerated the use of English goods. The camera would zoom in on different English products that Sandip and Bimala were using. After Sandip had finished drinking his tea, the camera focussed in on the English tea cup he had been using. When Bimala picked up an English-made vase with a picture of an angel on it, the camera focused on the vase. These goods may not have caught my attention if the camera hadn't singled them out, but because of the way the movie was filmed these products became very obvious. It seemed like Bimala and Sandip were not thinking that the products they were using and touching were English made, like they were so accustomed to seeing the products around that it didn't phase them. I feel that this was the director picking up on the author's opinion that the English goods were too far integrated into the Indian culture to be completely removed by Swadeshi.
However, there was one specific situation in the move where Sandip was fully aware that he was using an English product and did not have a problem with it. He smoked English cigarettes throughout the movie, saying that he preferred them over Swadeshi cigarettes and it was something he would not compromise on. One of his fellow Swadeshi leaders even asked to borrow one of the cigarettes. This made the statement that Sandip and other Swadeshi members were not willing to sacrifice certain goods for their own pleasure. At the same time, they were forcing poor merchants to burn English goods and lose their livelihoods for Swadeshi. The director was really clever to use the cigarettes to show the hypocracy of Sandip and his partners, and also to point out the flaws in Sandip's character.
In the movie-version of the novel, the director really exagerated the use of English goods. The camera would zoom in on different English products that Sandip and Bimala were using. After Sandip had finished drinking his tea, the camera focussed in on the English tea cup he had been using. When Bimala picked up an English-made vase with a picture of an angel on it, the camera focused on the vase. These goods may not have caught my attention if the camera hadn't singled them out, but because of the way the movie was filmed these products became very obvious. It seemed like Bimala and Sandip were not thinking that the products they were using and touching were English made, like they were so accustomed to seeing the products around that it didn't phase them. I feel that this was the director picking up on the author's opinion that the English goods were too far integrated into the Indian culture to be completely removed by Swadeshi.
However, there was one specific situation in the move where Sandip was fully aware that he was using an English product and did not have a problem with it. He smoked English cigarettes throughout the movie, saying that he preferred them over Swadeshi cigarettes and it was something he would not compromise on. One of his fellow Swadeshi leaders even asked to borrow one of the cigarettes. This made the statement that Sandip and other Swadeshi members were not willing to sacrifice certain goods for their own pleasure. At the same time, they were forcing poor merchants to burn English goods and lose their livelihoods for Swadeshi. The director was really clever to use the cigarettes to show the hypocracy of Sandip and his partners, and also to point out the flaws in Sandip's character.
Very true, I agree with your ideas and it reminds me of other movements that end up contradicting themselves, such as certain big environmental activists and politicians who promote clean energy and recycling but show up to conferences on private jets or live in massive houses that have one small solar panel on them that might power one light over the door. The fact that they can go promote environmental efforts and not follow any of their own advice baffles me.
ReplyDelete